Christchurch mosque terror attack.

Sep 2015
1,755
England
IDK.

I don't think I'm focusing on the positive. At least it isn't my intention.

I'm just trying to see the whole and to not put things in boxes.

You're right on Rohinga.

But what about this Australian guy, and his "model", that Scandinavian guy ?

We've so much focused on Islamic terrorism that we forgot that terrorism hasn't an ideology, a religion, a race. In the sense that none is imune to extremism, to terrorism.

Our services made files on every single radicalized Islamist, but it seems they forgot that a white supremacist can radicalize too, that a leftist can radicalize too, aso.

If You ignore the actual religion, the actual ideology, it's becoming obvious how radicalizing, extremism, terrorism are "ticking" in the same way: take this Australian guy and the Ottomans. It's identical to the Islamist terrorist and the Crusaders. The same absurd projection of a past on today's RL. For example.

Terrorists function in the same way. Extremists function in the same way. Be them Hindu, Left, Black, whatever.

We've have better chances against all of them if we understand and accept it.
I'm no specialist on terrorists or extremists states of mind. But it is the case, sort of must be, that extremism springs from a something. The Crusaders were just helping to defend a people that they had a sense of commonality with. At least the pope Urban VI (?) informed them of as much. But extremists do not decide to massacre a few innocent people, who happen to be members of some wider group, simply because they (the killers) are part of some other wider group, and by wider i mean a nation state or people for example, or religion as you say, or race; not unless they allow themselves to become extremely prejudiced probably based on some stereotype; or have a specific reason. A Scottish guy might decide he can advance his cause of independence against the rest of the British people by targeting, some of them, perhaps members of the public, government, whatever...

In a way extremists are not the key issue. Perhaps they are just lost nutcases, where more likely than the rest of us and so forth. The key is the cause, and its ideology (its specific points), or associated (corrupted) ideology. People will find these ideologies, because they will go looking for them.
 
Oct 2013
14,071
Europix
But extremists do not decide to massacre a few innocent people, who happen to be members of some wider group, simply because they (the killers) are part of some other wider group, ...

I disagree.

The extremism's core belief is being part of a superior group, all other groups being inferior.

"Innocent people" are the members of their own group, members of other groups aren't innocent but guilty.
 
Likes: arkteia

Willempie

Ad Honorem
Jul 2015
5,009
Netherlands
Oct 2010
4,974
DC
Hadnt heard about this one, but hardly surprising.
But just imagine if all the pundits, journalists and politicians had it wrong about Trump being a Putin sockpuppet, how wrong will they be about stuff they are not even supposed to understand?
As Science major and student who was involved in research, one of the things I have always felt is to have a healthy skepticism.
I believe the funding of research forces a lot of scientists in a lot of fields to produce results whether they are ready or not, sometimes the research is not panning out as expected (that is why one does it) but the funding agents will not be patient enough to allow you to finish your work the right way as opposed to the right timing (deadline for applications and renewal)
PS De Ligt scored his first for the Dutch team (unfortunately we lost the game though)
He needed that goal after what happened on the German first goal.

Can't Believe my team let Gnabry go. :(
Starting from next week, Facebook will ban people for praising or supporting white nationalism and white separatism.

Blog post explaining their decision:

Standing Against Hate | Facebook Newsroom
I thought they already had guidelines for such things.
 
I thought they already had guidelines for such things.
They did allow some white nationalist content it did not consider to be racist, now they've altered their position:

Our policies have long prohibited hateful treatment of people based on characteristics such as race, ethnicity or religion — and that has always included white supremacy. We didn’t originally apply the same rationale to expressions of white nationalism and separatism because we were thinking about broader concepts of nationalism and separatism — things like American pride and Basque separatism, which are an important part of people’s identity.

But over the past three months our conversations with members of civil society and academics who are experts in race relations around the world have confirmed that white nationalism and separatism cannot be meaningfully separated from white supremacy and organized hate groups. Our own review of hate figures and organizations – as defined by our Dangerous Individuals & Organizations policy – further revealed the overlap between white nationalism and separatism and white supremacy. Going forward, while people will still be able to demonstrate pride in their ethnic heritage, we will not tolerate praise or support for white nationalism and separatism.
We'll see how they interpret "praise or support for white nationalism and separatism". Maybe they'll crack down on Basque and Catalonia independence supporters, ban anyone with a Confederate flag e.t.c. maybe they're just reiterating their previous stance to make it look like they're doing something about it, we'll see.
 

Similar History Discussions